There is a sad excuse of an argument almost unanimously used by gay marriage advocates. “You’re trying to force your religion on me! What about the separation of church and state?!”
This immediately is guilty of the genetic fallacy. Simply because an argument comes from a religious person does not inherently mean that the argument is religious, nor that it is wrong. Homosexual marriage proponents attempt to avoid actually discussing the issue. Ad hominem is the way to go.
Another issue is the idea of separation of church and state. Without going into too much detail, separation of church and state does not require an individual to check their beliefs at the door. Contrary to popular liberal belief, it is not even in the Constitution. Rather, Thomas Jefferson mentioned the “wall of separation” in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. It was simply a reassurance that government would not overstep its bounds in establishing a state religion. Never did he mention that they are to neglect their convictions in politics.
This raises another point. Opposing gay marriage on grounds of religion does not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment of the Constitution. The establishment clause was put in place to prevent a single sect (from their prior experience under the Church of England) from being forced on others by government. The entirety of Christian churches – Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox – oppose gay marriage, except, of course, the new liberal movements to hijack biblical truth. Judaism and Islam are also against redefining marriage. So limiting marriage to monogamous, heterosexual relationships is hardly the establishment of a religion. Rather, it reflects a number of religions.
Furthermore, the very argument against a metaphysical code of morals defining marriage is hypocritical. Why do homosexual marriage proponents believe that gays should marry? It is in line with their own morals, however twisted they are. The attempt to avoid a religious view by claiming that God should have no say is itself a religious claim, for the morals that tell them gay marriage is acceptable are based off of a metaphysical belief. To avoid any use of immaterial constraint is to ignore morality entirely, in which case there is no right to tell me I am wrong, since one’s morals are no better than another’s. Herein lies the problem with the claim of the goodness of sodomite marriage.
That being said, many Christians have chosen to go the route of religious argument. The Bible says so is a good enough argument for me, but it is not for many. Nor is it reason enough to prevent something like gay marriage from being allowed. I will grant that our law should have better reason than a solely religious restriction on marriage.
So, even with the deep flaws apparent in the argument for gay marriage and against religious principles, I am still able to present a completely secular view on why homosexual marriage is negative for our society.
There is a reason as to why marriage has generally been limited to a man and a woman. Pause: red flags are already going up among gay marriage proponents. “Men married more than one woman in the Bible.” Let us briefly follow the scent of the red herring. It is certainly true that men married more than one woman in the Bible. But nowhere do we find it condoned. In fact, it always bred problems. Abraham took his wife’s handmaid to wife, and through it was born the still-hot relationship between the Jews and Arabs. Jacob’s wives were jealous of each other, and his children quarreled consistently, ultimately selling one brother as a slave because of their jealousy over Jacob playing favorites. David’s family fell apart and warred against each other. Solomon never got God’s full blessing. The reason that homosexuality was dealt with more severely is that is strikes at the very image of God by making sex into something totally different than what God intended it to be, and that it skews the image we see between Christ and His bride by making God’s design of marriage something to be mocked.
Marriage is traditionally monogamous and heterosexual, I believe, for two reasons. The first pertains to where it leads, the second to its importance in society.
I must be careful to avoid the slippery slope fallacy. I do not claim that worse things WILL happen, but that I believe it is the logical conclusion of sodomite marriage. If we are to erode the definition of marriage that has been with us, literally, since the beginning of time, why should we only slightly alter it? Why not throw the door wide open? Why discriminate against those that want to marry something different? If marriage can be changed from its root definition, there should not be a ban on other marriages. Why can’t marriage be, as a friend would say, “between a man, two chickens, and a bathtub?” Take the “mecaphile” that is marrying a Volkswagon Beetle. Or the countless cases of people marrying dogs. And goats. And there is the woman the married a warehouse. And a man who married a tree. There are plenty more examples.
These are bizarre examples, but there are worse possibilities. There are parents who want to marry their children, along with other incestuous relationships. Polygamous marriages have been banned in every state, but why should polygamists be excluded from marriage and homosexuals included? Then there is the movement for pedophiliac rights. Their claim is that pedophilia is simply a sexual orientation, just as the LGBT movement claims theirs are.
Are we willing to be consistent with our views? If it is true that an individual should marry whomever he loves and we are to be tolerant of that, it is hypocritical to say that two men can marry but a man and two women cannot. Or a woman and a dog, a man and a tree, a woman and a warehouse. Or a father and his daughter. Or a man and a child. It is practicing elitism to elevate gay relationships to the status of marriage yet hang all sorts of other marriages out to dry. Be consistent in your demands. Changing the blueprint for marriage ruins the definition and makes anything a possibility.
Then there is the lack of sustainability of such a practice as sodomite marriages. I dislike Vladimir Putin as much as the next guy, but his law relating to homosexuals got a bad rap. Russia is in a bad situation created by Communism. The killings of millions over the years along with unimaginable casualties in World War II left them hurting in population. Then add the despair of living in a brutal totalitarian state that drove women to the norm of multiple abortions. The nation is hurting in regard to population. Hence, Putin has heavily regulated abortion almost to the point of full criminalization. They need strong families that, frankly, can reproduce and grow Russia’s population. This is also why Putin signed the law to ban homosexuals from advertising and openly advocating their lifestyle. It did not criminalize homosexuality, as the American media led people to believe.
This springboards to the sustainability problem with homosexual unions. Sodomy does not produce children. Unless there is a heterosexual relationship that takes place outside of the homosexual union, no children will be produced.
However, society has a vested interest in the traditional family. The natural result of heterosexual marriage is the rearing up of children. While individuals should not be forced to be essential factories producing children, any strong nation has marriages that produce offspring. Much of the health and future of a nation can be viewed through population pyramids. If the most populous age ranges are younger, there is a good future. If the bulk of the population is concentrated in age ranges closer to natural death, there is something wrong. The free allowance and acceptance of gay marriage would have a detrimental effect on the population by virtue of its impossibility to produce children. Without being too crass, there is a reason for the design of men and women; there is a puzzle that fits together, and only through natural sex comes the possibility of having children. Even in vitro fertilization utilizes the same process. Put simply, homosexual relations will not further the healthy future of a society. Only heterosexual marriage can properly accomplish that.
The inconsistencies in the movement to legalize gay marriage are telling. The lack of regard for bringing children into the world is concerning. For completely nonreligious reasons, it is vital to maintain the age-old definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
That being said, a religious argument is not an evil thing. In order to truly examine the inherent rightness or wrongness of gay marriage, one must do so through some metaphysical morality. Attempts to reason away the validity of biblical truth will fail; it has stood over time and it promises to until the end. Gay marriage is imprudent through secular reasoning. It is sinful through the law of God.